Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.

A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.

No GISS measurements over water

The GISS weather stations are located on land. None of these weather stations measure the temperature on 70% of the earth’s surface which is water!

Who is GISS anyway?

GISS is a part of NASA and stands for Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It makes sense that this is a part of NASA. What DOESN’T make sense is why a space agency is using surface mounted weather stations for evidence of climate change.

Another thing of interest about GISS is who the CEO is – Dr James Hansen, author and speaker with an alarmist approach to the climate change/ global warming argument. It is usual for people who are government employees to keep their political opinions to themselves, or at least to comment anonymously so that it cannot be attributed to the government agency they work for. Dr Hansen is a very vocal exception to this rule.

Government employees are meant to be apolitical. They are supposed to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and give impartial advice regardless of who is in Government.

Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen’s space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

He actually says, in the second paragraph, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”

To me this sounds like spin for “The hardest part is making the numbers show what I want them to”. Let’s see how long it takes for that sentence in the NASA GISS website to get changed.

National Geographic’s website reports that a scientist claims to have found rain making bacteria. This is one of heaven knows how many factors that are not yet understood about climate, and therefore not built into computer climate models.

Rainmaking bacteria that live in clouds may have evolved the ability to spur showers as a way to disperse themselves worldwide, a recent study found.

The research gives scientists a first glimpse into the link between biology and climate, and into how the tiny organisms globe-trot with the weather cycle.

The microbes—called ice nucleators—are found in rain, snow, and hail throughout the world, according to previous work by Brent Christner, a microbiologist at Louisiana State University.

Christner had shown that, at a high enough concentration, these organisms may be efficient drivers for forming ice in clouds, the first step in forming snow and most rain.

But he hadn’t been able to pinpoint their source—until now.

In the recent study, Christner and colleagues found that the critters hail from snow, soils, and young plant seedlings in such such far-flung sources as Antarctica, Canada’s Yukon Territory, and the French Alps.

National Geographic report that this is a theory which may build upon earlier studies of “nucleators” – materials which trigger formation of ice crystals in clouds.

The theory—called bioprecipitation—was pioneered by David Sands, a plant pathologist at Montana State University, in the 1980s. But little information existed on how the rainmaking bacteria moved through the atmosphere until Christner and his colleagues began their work in 2005.

This also links into the urban legend that trees attract rain – it may well be fact!

The concept also ties into Sands’s ongoing study of the idea that drought cycles are connected to bacteria in clouds….

For instance, if people overgraze lands, “these bacteria are without a home … and can have serious consequences, possibly, for lack of rainfall,” Sands said.

Simply put, a lack of vegetation may lead to a lack of bacteria, which could limit clouds’ ability to shed rain.

Now this is really interesting! How do these bacteria work? How many are around at present? How many were around at different stages in the Earth’s climate history? Can our ice core and fossil experts identify these bacteria in their samples?

Could this help man to prevent or reverse dought? Does this affect weather or climate?

If greenhouse gases are causing global warming, then we need to eliminate oxygen to rid our planet of greenhouse gases.

Look at the components of the major greenhouse gases –

water vapour – H2O

carbon dioxide – CO2

methane – CH4

nitrous oxide – N2O

ozone – O3

CFC’s – various combinations of carbon, flourine and chlorine

Four of the major GHG’s include oxygen! Our atmosphere now has about 21% oxygen – oxygen molecules just floating around waiting to form into one of these greenhouse gases!

Oxygen is also responsible for devastating bush fires around the globe every year – fires need oxygen.

So where is all of this terrible oxygen coming from? Plants! That grass, the flowers, shrubs and trees you planted around your home because they “look nice” are actually poisoning our atmosphere with oxygen!

Scientists have discovered that plants create oxygen through a complex process called photosynthesis. Plants absorb sunlight (that’s right – plants are even stealing our light source!) through chlorophyll (the stuff that makes them look green) and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, keep the carbon to themselves and transpire oxygen and water vapour – the two most populous greenhouse gases!

This is a world wide emergency! What can be done about all of this oxygen!

What’s worse, scientists have discovered that growing plants create more oxygen than unhealthy plants, and computer models show that these plants will continue to grow at more than 10% a year unless we do something about this!

Firstly, we need to stop more oxygen being added to the atmosphere. We need to rid the planet of all of these plants. That won’t be easy, especially as scientists have discovered plants called algae live in our oceans, seas and rivers.

Secondly, we need to remove all oxygen from the atmosphere somehow and bury it underground. This will require very complex new science, so governments around the world will need to dedicate billions of dollars to research to study the effects of oxygen and discover how to safely remove it from our atmosphere.

What was that? People need to breath oxygen? We can’t have that! What a terrible addiction! In that case we also need every government to prepare a National Adaptation Program Assessment to show how they will assist their people to wean themselves off this silly addiction and lodge it with the United Nations.

In fact, with such a looming catastrophe of global proportions, the UN had better set up a new coordinating body. I suggest IPOD – Intergovernmental Panel for Oxygen Destruction. They will need to have frequent meetings at different places all around the globe to demonstrate their commitment to this serious problem. Meetings will probably be held in forests, surrounded by the cause of this problem, to remind people of the purpose of the cause.

What do you mean, don’t be ridiculous? Are you denying that oxygen forms part of most greenhouse gases and that the atmosphere is 21% oxygen? Are you doubting years of scientific research which has proven that photosynthesis is the main cause of this oxygen?

Spread the word and share your ideas on how to save the world from oxygen!

Ever made an Excel spreadsheet, or know someone who has? Most people reading this would have. Lotus 123 (an earlier spreadsheet software program) became popular in the Eighties because it gave people with a little bit of computer expertise a simple way to do modelling.

Work out the household budget and see what effects a change in rent/ pay/ school fees has.

Work out the the effect on the household budget if interest rates are x% compared to y%.

Work out the Sales Department’s net profit if sales of widget A are 100 units compared to 500 compared to 1000, including the different marketing costs to achieve each level of sales.

These are all examples of very simple computer models. What ALL computer models have in common is that some factors stay the same and some factors can be changed to see “what if”.

Presumably the global warming/ climate change computer models are much more complex. Regardless of the complexity, the value of some factors are built in and fixed, and some are changed to see “what if”.

The computer model, simple or ultra complex, is only as good as the value of the factors that are used and the accuracy of the formula for predicting the effect of the changed value.

Therefore computer models for climate change effects are only as good as the numbers and the equations that are put into the model. They are not magic or superior to human judgement. They are only as good as the research and open mindedness of the person who creates the model. And computer models only show “what if”. The result depends on the “if” factor.

There is a very technical computer term which applies here – GIGO. This stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out.